On Sunday, 8 September 2019 07:04:58 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, Jim wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:32:11 +0100
ARW wrote:

spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay
and anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver
that can wipe it's own arse.


You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

The possessive form is 'its', 'it's' is the contraction of 'it is'.

Jonathan

On 10/09/2019 14:47, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 08/09/2019 08:24, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 07:04, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, JimÂ* wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:32:11 +0100
ARW wrote:

spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay
and anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver
that can wipe it's own arse.


You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

Except, of course that it *was* incorrect.

People often get "its"/"it's" wrong. The possessive is "its" and
"it's" is always a contraction of "it is" or "it has."

"It's" works the same way as the contractions "wheres" or "theres"
and "its" is a possessive just like "my" or "your."

SteveW

I'm fine with its and it's.
I always have trouble with their, there, theres, theirs, there's and
their's

I dont think 'theres' exists
You left out they're

:-)

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 08/09/2019 13:07, R D S wrote:
Well, I suspect in our day we'd get a bollocking at school and then
another one at home from the parents for showing them up.

Nowadays the parents would probably turn on the teacher.

+1.

My wife worked in a school until a few years back. One rated Excellent.
Nothing like the old Grammar schools we both went to.

Andy

On 08/09/2019 20:53, NY wrote:
My headmaster spoke in a bored-with-life upper-class drawl. He was
obsessed with pushing as many boys to go to Oxbridge, and spoke
disdainfully of "other universities". I remember he called the whole of
the Lower Sixth to a meeting and said "I am now going to read out a list
of names" - which he did - and then continued "Those of you whose names
I have not read out are not considered Oxbridge Material and should
leave this meeting now" which was a very tactless way of putting it and
must have been offensive to those who were "only" considered suitable
for red-brick universities.

That's almost familiar.

My school measured itself by how many boys got to Oxbridge, and how many
to other universities.

They'd rather you did Ancient Greek at Oxford than Engineering at UMIST.

What do you mean, career?

Andy

On 09/09/2019 09:56, wrote:
I've never had much time for the whole uniform thing, seems petty & pointless. None of 'my' schools had uniforms & it was never a problem.

The advantage is it stops them competing with Gucci and the like.

Andy

On 10/09/2019 14:22, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
You
could buy it from the school shop or from one specific gents'
outfitters in
town. There was still a gradation of poor/rich, based on the grade of
blazer
that your parents bought you: a "cheap" felt-like material or
"expensive"
worsted barathea. It was still more or less the same style and cut,
the same
colour (bottle green), same "silver" buttons, and with the same
school badge
on the breast pocket, but the gradation of the type of material still
sorted
the sheep from the goats ;-)

yes but the general idea was that everyone from that school looked
pretty much the same.


In other words, if you try to make everyone the same, they'll *still*
find a
way to look for differences and better/worse distinctions ;-)

Yes but the school can claim everyone is treated the same.

Yes, the school treated everyone the same and everyone looked more or
less the same, barring attempts to "vary" the school uniform as much as
they could get away with - because human nature seems to be that
everyone wants to look as different from each other as they can manage
while staying within the rules.


The one situation where school uniform is a problem, is when it
immediately identifies children from the "posh school" to the local kids
from the council estate next door. We had a real problem with local
"Pots Kids" (the district was unofficially called Potovens because of
the smelting ovens in the area a long time ago) invading the school
grounds, and attacking isolated boys who got separated from the rest
while out on a cross-country run.

We had a similar problem, but with another school - unfortunately for
them, we had a sixth form and they didn't, so they tended to run off
when challenged.

SteveW

On Monday, 9 September 2019 14:30:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 07:22:25 UTC+1, soup wrote:
On 08/09/2019 23:38, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 12:59:36 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Or you could let the boys wear skirts if they want to. ;-)

There was a case where it happened en masse in response to some overly petty uniform rule changes.


In Australia it was

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...uniform-policy

Seems weird but OK, but then I am a Jock so the sight of a male in
a 'skirt' is not so offensive in my eyes. :O) And as a modern human
being I say let 'them' wear what they like as long as it is clean, in
good repair, legal etc .

I've never had much time for the whole uniform thing, seems petty &
pointless. None of 'my' schools had uniforms & it was never a problem.

One idea was it stopped kids being identified as coming from rich or poor
families by what they wore.

which is rather pointless

And a uniform gives an identity to all. Would
you allow an army to wear what they chose?

very different situation.


NT

On Monday, 9 September 2019 14:30:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 15:39:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

But of course to make a profit you dont have hundreds of demarcated
staff do you?

And the important thing with education is to make a profit from it.
Says it all, really.

What kind of fool thinks money doesn't matter?

What kind of fool thinks it is paramount with education? If so, easy to
save money. Simply don't educate the masses.

People that think financial decisions don't determine many choices in education are true fools.

On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:02:47 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...

One idea was it stopped kids being identified as coming from rich or poor
families by what they wore. And a uniform gives an identity to all.

I went to a school with a uniform. Most things were fairly anonymous and you
could buy them anywhere. The only thing that was unique was the blazer. You
could buy it from the school shop or from one specific gents' outfitters in
town. There was still a gradation of poor/rich, based on the grade of blazer
that your parents bought you: a "cheap" felt-like material or "expensive"
worsted barathea. It was still more or less the same style and cut, the same
colour (bottle green), same "silver" buttons, and with the same school badge
on the breast pocket, but the gradation of the type of material still sorted
the sheep from the goats ;-)

In other words, if you try to make everyone the same, they'll *still* find a
way to look for differences and better/worse distinctions ;-)

My blazer suffered a slight "accident" when someone held a lit Bunsen burner
under the elbow during Chemistry. My mum got special permission from school
to put on leather elbow patches (still a matching shade of green) to hide
the singe mark.

Kids aren't so clueless that they can't work out who is poor & who isn't, uniform or not.


NT

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 21:53:19 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/09/2019 09:56, tabbypurr wrote:

I've never had much time for the whole uniform thing, seems petty & pointless. None of 'my' schools had uniforms & it was never a problem.

The advantage is it stops them competing with Gucci and the like.

Andy

not really a problem for the school


NT

On 10/09/2019 15:50, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 07:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan
wrote:

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 07:04:58 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, Jim wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:32:11 +0100
ARW wrote:

spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay
and anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver
that can wipe it's own arse.


You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

The possessive form is 'its', 'it's' is the contraction of 'it is'.

Jonathan

+1, although quite why I'm bothering, I don't know, since it was Harry
linking to that BBC article, and he's guaranteed to always get it
wrong.

It's his house; it's her house; it's its house


The third being gender confused?

On 11/09/2019 06:25, Richard wrote:
On 10/09/2019 15:50, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 07:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan
wrote:

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 07:04:58 UTC+1, harryÂ* wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, JimÂ* wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:32:11 +0100
ARW wrote:

spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay
and anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver
that can wipe it's own arse.


You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

The possessive form is 'its', 'it's' is the contraction of 'it is'.

Jonathan

+1, although quite why I'm bothering, I don't know, since it was Harry
linking to that BBC article, and he's guaranteed to always get it
wrong.

It's his house; it's her house; it's its house


The third being gender confused?

No, a bank - or other corporate entity.


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 21:53:19 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/09/2019 09:56, tabbypurr wrote:

I've never had much time for the whole uniform thing, seems petty &
pointless. None of 'my' schools had uniforms & it was never a problem.

The advantage is it stops them competing with Gucci and the like.

Andy

not really a problem for the school


Im afraid it is.

I trained in an all girls school where the girls were required to wear a
uniform. Besides the (inevitable) individual problems when girls turned up
with something which didnt comply - skirt too short was the most common,
make up of course, the €˜hot potato was, believe or no, carrier bags.

There was a pecking order based on the designer carrier bag you carried
your books in. Yes, the kind of bag you (well perhaps your daughter) might
get if she shopped in a flash London shop. Not only did the name count to
establish the pecking order, so did the size, the smaller the better. I
dont think for one minute the girls concerned actually shopped in these
places, they may have walked by them, it was all teenage nonsense.


Not only did this create problems when bags got damaged, got lost, etc,
some of these bags were tiny and the pupils were turning up to lessons
without books claiming they couldnt fit them in their bag.

Yes, it was dealt with etc but it took time and effort which could have
been more usefully used in other ways.

On the wider subject of uniforms, they help instil a sense of self respect
etc if the rules are enforced.

On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 07:45:23 UTC+1, Brian Reay wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 21:53:19 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/09/2019 09:56, tabbypurr wrote:

I've never had much time for the whole uniform thing, seems petty &
pointless. None of 'my' schools had uniforms & it was never a problem..

The advantage is it stops them competing with Gucci and the like.

Andy

not really a problem for the school


Im afraid it is.

I trained in an all girls school where the girls were required to wear a
uniform. Besides the (inevitable) individual problems when girls turned up
with something which didnt comply - skirt too short was the most common,
make up of course, the €˜hot potato was, believe or no, carrier bags.

There was a pecking order based on the designer carrier bag you carried
your books in. Yes, the kind of bag you (well perhaps your daughter) might
get if she shopped in a flash London shop. Not only did the name count to
establish the pecking order, so did the size, the smaller the better. I
dont think for one minute the girls concerned actually shopped in these
places, they may have walked by them, it was all teenage nonsense.

there is always pecking order nonsense. Requiring uniforms does not eliminate it.


Not only did this create problems when bags got damaged, got lost, etc,
some of these bags were tiny and the pupils were turning up to lessons
without books claiming they couldnt fit them in their bag.

Yes, it was dealt with etc but it took time and effort which could have
been more usefully used in other ways.

warning/ punishment for not bringing books is nothing out of the ordinary


On the wider subject of uniforms, they help instil a sense of self respect
etc if the rules are enforced.

lol

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 08/09/2019 20:53, NY wrote:
My headmaster spoke in a bored-with-life upper-class drawl. He was
obsessed with pushing as many boys to go to Oxbridge, and spoke
disdainfully of "other universities". I remember he called the whole of
the Lower Sixth to a meeting and said "I am now going to read out a list
of names" - which he did - and then continued "Those of you whose names
I have not read out are not considered Oxbridge Material and should
leave this meeting now" which was a very tactless way of putting it and
must have been offensive to those who were "only" considered suitable
for red-brick universities.

That's almost familiar.

My school measured itself by how many boys got to Oxbridge, and how many
to other universities.

They'd rather you did Ancient Greek at Oxford than Engineering at UMIST.

What do you mean, career?

I have a friend with a Classics degree - she went into computer programming
- a very good career.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:02:47 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...

One idea was it stopped kids being identified as coming from rich or
poor families by what they wore. And a uniform gives an identity to
all.

I went to a school with a uniform. Most things were fairly anonymous
and you could buy them anywhere. The only thing that was unique was
the blazer. You could buy it from the school shop or from one specific
gents' outfitters in town. There was still a gradation of poor/rich,
based on the grade of blazer that your parents bought you: a "cheap"
felt-like material or "expensive" worsted barathea. It was still more
or less the same style and cut, the same colour (bottle green), same
"silver" buttons, and with the same school badge on the breast pocket,
but the gradation of the type of material still sorted the sheep from
the goats ;-)

In other words, if you try to make everyone the same, they'll *still*
find a way to look for differences and better/worse distinctions ;-)

My blazer suffered a slight "accident" when someone held a lit Bunsen
burner under the elbow during Chemistry. My mum got special permission
from school to put on leather elbow patches (still a matching shade of
green) to hide the singe mark.

Kids aren't so clueless that they can't work out who is poor & who isn't,
uniform or not.

At boarding school, one of my contemporaries parents stayed in a caravan -
rather than an hotel - when the came to visit. Everyone assumed family
poverty. Totally untrue - they just liked caravanning.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 11/09/2019 06:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/09/2019 06:25, Richard wrote:
On 10/09/2019 15:50, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 07:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan
wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 07:04:58 UTC+1, harryÂ* wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, JimÂ* wrote:

You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

The possessive form is 'its', 'it's' is the contraction of 'it is'.

Jonathan

+1, although quite why I'm bothering, I don't know, since it was Harry
linking to that BBC article, and he's guaranteed to always get it
wrong.

It's his house; it's her house; it's its house


The third being gender confused?

No, a bank -Â* or other corporate entity.

Do banks live in houses?

--
Max Demian

On 11/09/2019 10:52, Max Demian wrote:
On 11/09/2019 06:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/09/2019 06:25, Richard wrote:
On 10/09/2019 15:50, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 07:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan
wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 07:04:58 UTC+1, harryÂ* wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, JimÂ* wrote:

You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

The possessive form is 'its', 'it's' is the contraction of 'it is'.

Jonathan

+1, although quite why I'm bothering, I don't know, since it was Harry
linking to that BBC article, and he's guaranteed to always get it
wrong.

It's his house; it's her house; it's its house


The third being gender confused?

No, a bank -Â* or other corporate entity.

Do banks live in houses?

Possesion is not occupation


--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 14:22:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
You
could buy it from the school shop or from one specific gents' outfitters
in
town. There was still a gradation of poor/rich, based on the grade of
blazer
that your parents bought you: a "cheap" felt-like material or "expensive"
worsted barathea. It was still more or less the same style and cut, the
same
colour (bottle green), same "silver" buttons, and with the same school
badge
on the breast pocket, but the gradation of the type of material still
sorted
the sheep from the goats ;-)

yes but the general idea was that everyone from that school looked pretty
much the same.


In other words, if you try to make everyone the same, they'll *still*
find a
way to look for differences and better/worse distinctions ;-)

Yes but the school can claim everyone is treated the same.

Yes, the school treated everyone the same and everyone looked more or less
the same, barring attempts to "vary" the school uniform as much as they
could get away with - because human nature seems to be that everyone wants
to look as different from each other as they can manage while staying within
the rules.

That depends on the culture this wasn't true in china. It is still isn't true in the authodox religions such as judaism, have yuo been to stamford hill ?

The one situation where school uniform is a problem, is when it immediately
identifies children from the "posh school" to the local kids from the
council estate next door. We had a real problem with local "Pots Kids" (the
district was unofficially called Potovens because of the smelting ovens in
the area a long time ago) invading the school grounds, and attacking
isolated boys who got separated from the rest while out on a cross-country
run.

Standard practice if you look differnt and it's not only a human trait it happens with animals too.

When I was at school it was the closest school that happened to be catholic school that were the enemy I rememer one day one year someone saw a knife.

But I had to walk almost past that school withing a few 100 metres but was never attacked they looked at us we looked at them. A few thugs might get involved in somne fights but the vast majoroty just got on with life.


My mum said that in her day, the girls from the High School and the boys
from the Grammar School were not allowed to be seen together while wearing
school uniform (this was a High School rule - the Grammar School were not as
paranoid) which was a problem when brothers and sisters travelled home on
the same bus or train. Some girls took plain clothes in a holdall and
changed into them in the loos just outside the school gate so they could
meet brothers or boyfriends without being penalised. The school knew it
happened and condoned this way of avoiding the rule: apparently it was not
the fact that *"their* girls met boys, but the fact that they were seen to
be High School girls doing it. The school had a very strange attitude: they
allowed junior boys from the Grammar School to use the pool - obviously when
girls were nowhere near - but they imposed a cur-off age of 12 because they
thought that older boys, post-puberty, would "pollute" the water. Maybe they
genuinely thought that their girls could become pregnant through swimming in
water that virile boys had just swum in ;-)

Sounds reasonable.
But boys from boys schools and girls from girls schools were always kept apart when close to the schools, nothing new about that.

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 14:47:18 UTC+1, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 08/09/2019 08:24, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 07:04, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, JimÂ* wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:32:11 +0100
ARW wrote:

spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay
and anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver
that can wipe it's own arse.


You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

Except, of course that it *was* incorrect.

People often get "its"/"it's" wrong. The possessive is "its" and "it's"
is always a contraction of "it is" or "it has."

"It's" works the same way as the contractions "wheres" or "theres" and
"its" is a possessive just like "my" or "your."

SteveW

I'm fine with its and it's.
I always have trouble with their, there, theres, theirs, there's and their's

That's the thing about inteligent people thay can work it out by analising the context, thick ****s can't.

In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 14:30:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 15:39:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

But of course to make a profit you dont have hundreds of
demarcated staff do you?

And the important thing with education is to make a profit from
it. Says it all, really.

What kind of fool thinks money doesn't matter?

What kind of fool thinks it is paramount with education? If so, easy
to save money. Simply don't educate the masses.

People that think financial decisions don't determine many choices in
education are true fools.

Very different matter to making a profit from it.

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
But boys from boys schools and girls from girls schools were always kept
apart when close to the schools, nothing new about that.

What was odd about my mum's experience was that it was being seen together
*in school uniform* that was the cardinal sin; being seen together out of
recognisable uniform was a more venial sin, and no sin at all if it was
brothers and sisters. I'm not sure what the protocol was about travelling
home on the same buses, trams or trains - whether there was "a boys'
section" and "a girls' section".

Where I went, the boys' grammar school and the girls' high school were on
opposite sides of a fairly quiet road. The pavements and road between one
boundary fence and the other were "neutral ground" where it was commonly
accepted that boys and girls would meet.

The high school didn't have a swimming pool and they used ours. The girls
were closely shepherded as they made their way though our grounds, and a
sign was posted on the outside door of the swimming pool so no boys had any
excuse for straying in "by accident". It's surprising how many invented
excuses along the lines of "I think I've left something in there - can I
look for it". ;-) But there was no thought of "the girls may pollute the
boys' water" or "we're not swimming in there because the boys may have
polluted it".

A few 6th form general-studies lessons were shared between the two schools,
and school plays had a shared cast, though the stage hands were exclusively
made up of grammar school boys (when the plays were staged there) or high
school girls (when the plays were staged there). The plays were usually
Gilbert and Sullivan operas or plays such as "Brothers in Law" - I helped
with lighting on those. I'm not sure what the changing room arrangements
were, but I imagine there were attempts by both sides to sneak someone in
;-)

In article , NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
But boys from boys schools and girls from girls schools were always
kept apart when close to the schools, nothing new about that.

What was odd about my mum's experience was that it was being seen
together *in school uniform* that was the cardinal sin; being seen
together out of recognisable uniform was a more venial sin, and no sin
at all if it was brothers and sisters. I'm not sure what the protocol
was about travelling home on the same buses, trams or trains - whether
there was "a boys' section" and "a girls' section".

Where I went, the boys' grammar school and the girls' high school were on
opposite sides of a fairly quiet road. The pavements and road between
one boundary fence and the other were "neutral ground" where it was
commonly accepted that boys and girls would meet.

In Guildford, the girls' High School is close to the boys' Grammar School
and it is quite common for the two to meet at lunch time. A few years ago,
I was walking past one such gathering when one of the girls left the group
with "I wouldn't sleep with you" and getting half across the
road, continued "even if you paid me!". Well brought-up young ladies?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
charles wrote:
Where I went, the boys' grammar school and the girls' high school were on
opposite sides of a fairly quiet road. The pavements and road between
one boundary fence and the other were "neutral ground" where it was
commonly accepted that boys and girls would meet.

In Guildford, the girls' High School is close to the boys' Grammar
School and it is quite common for the two to meet at lunch time. A few
years ago, I was walking past one such gathering when one of the girls
left the group with "I wouldn't sleep with you" and getting half across
the road, continued "even if you paid me!". Well brought-up young
ladies?

In my day, it was common for a boy and girl to swap blazers once outside
of school when meeting up. To say to others they were a couple. Perhaps
that explains why Scotland doesn't seem quite so fixated on LBGTQIA issues
as other parts of the land. ;-)

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
But boys from boys schools and girls from girls schools were always
kept apart when close to the schools, nothing new about that.

What was odd about my mum's experience was that it was being seen
together *in school uniform* that was the cardinal sin; being seen
together out of recognisable uniform was a more venial sin, and no sin
at all if it was brothers and sisters. I'm not sure what the protocol
was about travelling home on the same buses, trams or trains - whether
there was "a boys' section" and "a girls' section".

Where I went, the boys' grammar school and the girls' high school were on
opposite sides of a fairly quiet road. The pavements and road between
one boundary fence and the other were "neutral ground" where it was
commonly accepted that boys and girls would meet.

In Guildford, the girls' High School is close to the boys' Grammar School
and it is quite common for the two to meet at lunch time. A few years ago,
I was walking past one such gathering when one of the girls left the group
with "I wouldn't sleep with you" and getting half across the
road, continued "even if you paid me!". Well brought-up young ladies?


LOL. The first house I ever lived in backed onto the playing fields of a
secondary school, and my mum's mum was paranoid that I'd learn some "naughty
words" from the "big boys and girls". That was when I was just a few months
old, in the early 60s, when I was lying in my pram in the back garden.
According to my mum, some of the language was "all 4-letter words" and she
was forever finding used "thingies" (I presume she meant condoms!) stuck in
the wire fence between the school and our garden.

On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 14:57:26 UTC+1, NY wrote:
LOL. The first house I ever lived in backed onto the playing fields of a
secondary school, and my mum's mum was paranoid that I'd learn some "naughty
words" from the "big boys and girls".

My mother came home to find my father had taught me the words to "wash me in the water where you washed your dirty daughter" which wasn't quite the nursery rhyme she had expected me to have learned that day.

Owain

On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 13:43:38 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 14:30:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 15:39:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

But of course to make a profit you dont have hundreds of
demarcated staff do you?

And the important thing with education is to make a profit from
it. Says it all, really.

What kind of fool thinks money doesn't matter?

What kind of fool thinks it is paramount with education? If so, easy
to save money. Simply don't educate the masses.

People that think financial decisions don't determine many choices in
education are true fools.

Very different matter to making a profit from it.

Depends what you call profit doesn't it, there's more to life than money.
I know usually profit is about money, but as I've said here if yuo get a day off working from home, so you have a 4 day week instead of a 5 day is that profitable to the individual concenred.

On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 14:54:07 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Where I went, the boys' grammar school and the girls' high school were on
opposite sides of a fairly quiet road. The pavements and road between
one boundary fence and the other were "neutral ground" where it was
commonly accepted that boys and girls would meet.

In Guildford, the girls' High School is close to the boys' Grammar
School and it is quite common for the two to meet at lunch time. A few
years ago, I was walking past one such gathering when one of the girls
left the group with "I wouldn't sleep with you" and getting half across
the road, continued "even if you paid me!". Well brought-up young
ladies?

In my day, it was common for a boy and girl to swap blazers once outside
of school when meeting up. To say to others they were a couple. Perhaps
that explains why Scotland doesn't seem quite so fixated on LBGTQIA issues
as other parts of the land. ;-)

Ah so you started cross-dressing at an early age then

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
In my day, it was common for a boy and girl to swap blazers once
outside of school when meeting up. To say to others they were a
couple. Perhaps that explains why Scotland doesn't seem quite so
fixated on LBGTQIA issues as other parts of the land. ;-)

Ah so you started cross-dressing at an early age then

No need since we already had the kilt. Ideal for fornication and
diarrhoea. But preferably not both at the same time.

--
*7up is good for you, signed snow white*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 11/09/2019 13:30, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 14:22:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
You
could buy it from the school shop or from one specific gents' outfitters
in
town. There was still a gradation of poor/rich, based on the grade of
blazer
that your parents bought you: a "cheap" felt-like material or "expensive"
worsted barathea. It was still more or less the same style and cut, the
same
colour (bottle green), same "silver" buttons, and with the same school
badge
on the breast pocket, but the gradation of the type of material still
sorted
the sheep from the goats ;-)

yes but the general idea was that everyone from that school looked pretty
much the same.


In other words, if you try to make everyone the same, they'll *still*
find a
way to look for differences and better/worse distinctions ;-)

Yes but the school can claim everyone is treated the same.

Yes, the school treated everyone the same and everyone looked more or less
the same, barring attempts to "vary" the school uniform as much as they
could get away with - because human nature seems to be that everyone wants
to look as different from each other as they can manage while staying within
the rules.

That depends on the culture this wasn't true in china. It is still isn't true in the authodox religions such as judaism, have yuo been to stamford hill ?

The one situation where school uniform is a problem, is when it immediately
identifies children from the "posh school" to the local kids from the
council estate next door. We had a real problem with local "Pots Kids" (the
district was unofficially called Potovens because of the smelting ovens in
the area a long time ago) invading the school grounds, and attacking
isolated boys who got separated from the rest while out on a cross-country
run.

Standard practice if you look differnt and it's not only a human trait it happens with animals too.

When I was at school it was the closest school that happened to be catholic school that were the enemy I rememer one day one year someone saw a knife.

But I had to walk almost past that school withing a few 100 metres but was never attacked they looked at us we looked at them. A few thugs might get involved in somne fights but the vast majoroty just got on with life.


My mum said that in her day, the girls from the High School and the boys
from the Grammar School were not allowed to be seen together while wearing
school uniform (this was a High School rule - the Grammar School were not as
paranoid) which was a problem when brothers and sisters travelled home on
the same bus or train. Some girls took plain clothes in a holdall and
changed into them in the loos just outside the school gate so they could
meet brothers or boyfriends without being penalised. The school knew it
happened and condoned this way of avoiding the rule: apparently it was not
the fact that *"their* girls met boys, but the fact that they were seen to
be High School girls doing it. The school had a very strange attitude: they
allowed junior boys from the Grammar School to use the pool - obviously when
girls were nowhere near - but they imposed a cur-off age of 12 because they
thought that older boys, post-puberty, would "pollute" the water. Maybe they
genuinely thought that their girls could become pregnant through swimming in
water that virile boys had just swum in ;-)

Sounds reasonable.
But boys from boys schools and girls from girls schools were always kept apart when close to the schools, nothing new about that.

Were they? Many boys from my boys only Grammar school spent most
lunchtimes over at the girl's Grammar.

SteveW

On 11/09/2019 21:01, Steve Walker wrote:
On 11/09/2019 13:30, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 14:22:35 UTC+1, NYÂ* wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
You
could buy it from the school shop or from one specific gents'
outfitters
in
town. There was still a gradation of poor/rich, based on the grade of
blazer
that your parents bought you: a "cheap" felt-like material or
"expensive"
worsted barathea. It was still more or less the same style and cut,
the
same
colour (bottle green), same "silver" buttons, and with the same school
badge
on the breast pocket, but the gradation of the type of material still
sorted
the sheep from the goats ;-)

yes but the general idea was that everyone from that school looked
pretty
much the same.


In other words, if you try to make everyone the same, they'll *still*
find a
way to look for differences and better/worse distinctions ;-)

Yes but the school can claim everyone is treated the same.

Yes, the school treated everyone the same and everyone looked more or
less
the same, barring attempts to "vary" the school uniform as much as they
could get away with - because human nature seems to be that everyone
wants
to look as different from each other as they can manage while staying
within
the rules.

That depends on the culture this wasn't true in china. It is still
isn't true in the authodox religions such as judaism, have yuo been to
stamford hill ?
The one situation where school uniform is a problem, is when it
immediately
identifies children from the "posh school" to the local kids from the
council estate next door. We had a real problem with local "Pots
Kids" (the
district was unofficially called Potovens because of the smelting
ovens in
the area a long time ago) invading the school grounds, and attacking
isolated boys who got separated from the rest while out on a
cross-country
run.

Standard practice if you look differnt and it's not only a human trait
it happens with animals too.

When I was at school it was the closest school that happened to be
catholic school that were the enemy I rememer one day one year someone
saw a knife.

But I had to walk almost past that school withing a few 100 metres but
was never attacked they looked at us we looked at them. A few thugs
might get involved in somne fights but the vast majoroty just got on
with life.

My mum said that in her day, the girls from the High School and the boys
from the Grammar School were not allowed to be seen together while
wearing
school uniform (this was a High School rule - the Grammar School were
not as
paranoid) which was a problem when brothers and sisters travelled
home on
the same bus or train. Some girls took plain clothes in a holdall and
changed into them in the loos just outside the school gate so they could
meet brothers or boyfriends without being penalised. The school knew it
happened and condoned this way of avoiding the rule: apparently it
was not
the fact that *"their* girls met boys, but the fact that they were
seen to
be High School girls doing it. The school had a very strange
attitude: they
allowed junior boys from the Grammar School to use the pool -
obviously when
girls were nowhere near - but they imposed a cur-off age of 12
because they
thought that older boys, post-puberty, would "pollute" the water.
Maybe they
genuinely thought that their girls could become pregnant through
swimming in
water that virile boys had just swum in ;-)

Sounds reasonable.
But boys from boys schools and girls from girls schools were always
kept apart when close to the schools, nothing new about that.

Were they? Many boys from my boys only Grammar school spent most
lunchtimes over at the girl's Grammar.

SteveW

And I just noticed that my grammar went all wrong there and put the
apostrophe in the wrong place!

SteveW

On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 21:01:19 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 11/09/2019 13:30, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 14:22:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
You
could buy it from the school shop or from one specific gents' outfitters
in
town. There was still a gradation of poor/rich, based on the grade of
blazer
that your parents bought you: a "cheap" felt-like material or "expensive"
worsted barathea. It was still more or less the same style and cut, the
same
colour (bottle green), same "silver" buttons, and with the same school
badge
on the breast pocket, but the gradation of the type of material still
sorted
the sheep from the goats ;-)

yes but the general idea was that everyone from that school looked pretty
much the same.


In other words, if you try to make everyone the same, they'll *still*
find a
way to look for differences and better/worse distinctions ;-)

Yes but the school can claim everyone is treated the same.

Yes, the school treated everyone the same and everyone looked more or less
the same, barring attempts to "vary" the school uniform as much as they
could get away with - because human nature seems to be that everyone wants
to look as different from each other as they can manage while staying within
the rules.

That depends on the culture this wasn't true in china. It is still isn't true in the authodox religions such as judaism, have yuo been to stamford hill ?

The one situation where school uniform is a problem, is when it immediately
identifies children from the "posh school" to the local kids from the
council estate next door. We had a real problem with local "Pots Kids" (the
district was unofficially called Potovens because of the smelting ovens in
the area a long time ago) invading the school grounds, and attacking
isolated boys who got separated from the rest while out on a cross-country
run.

Standard practice if you look differnt and it's not only a human trait it happens with animals too.

When I was at school it was the closest school that happened to be catholic school that were the enemy I rememer one day one year someone saw a knife.

But I had to walk almost past that school withing a few 100 metres but was never attacked they looked at us we looked at them. A few thugs might get involved in somne fights but the vast majoroty just got on with life.


My mum said that in her day, the girls from the High School and the boys
from the Grammar School were not allowed to be seen together while wearing
school uniform (this was a High School rule - the Grammar School were not as
paranoid) which was a problem when brothers and sisters travelled home on
the same bus or train. Some girls took plain clothes in a holdall and
changed into them in the loos just outside the school gate so they could
meet brothers or boyfriends without being penalised. The school knew it
happened and condoned this way of avoiding the rule: apparently it was not
the fact that *"their* girls met boys, but the fact that they were seen to
be High School girls doing it. The school had a very strange attitude: they
allowed junior boys from the Grammar School to use the pool - obviously when
girls were nowhere near - but they imposed a cur-off age of 12 because they
thought that older boys, post-puberty, would "pollute" the water. Maybe they
genuinely thought that their girls could become pregnant through swimming in
water that virile boys had just swum in ;-)

Sounds reasonable.
But boys from boys schools and girls from girls schools were always kept apart when close to the schools, nothing new about that.

Were they? Many boys from my boys only Grammar school spent most
lunchtimes over at the girl's Grammar.

I was talking offically, not what atually happened.
And I very much doubt gay male students spent much time in the girls scools.
unless it was an attempt to cover up their sexual preference.

On 11/09/2019 13:32, whisky-dave wrote:
That's the thing about inteligent people thay can work it out by analising the context, thick ****s can't.

Analising? You stick the words up your ****?

--
Cue Skitt...

On 12/09/2019 10:44, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 21:01:19 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 11/09/2019 13:30, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 14:22:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
You
could buy it from the school shop or from one specific gents' outfitters
in
town. There was still a gradation of poor/rich, based on the grade of
blazer
that your parents bought you: a "cheap" felt-like material or "expensive"
worsted barathea. It was still more or less the same style and cut, the
same
colour (bottle green), same "silver" buttons, and with the same school
badge
on the breast pocket, but the gradation of the type of material still
sorted
the sheep from the goats ;-)

yes but the general idea was that everyone from that school looked pretty
much the same.


In other words, if you try to make everyone the same, they'll *still*
find a
way to look for differences and better/worse distinctions ;-)

Yes but the school can claim everyone is treated the same.

Yes, the school treated everyone the same and everyone looked more or less
the same, barring attempts to "vary" the school uniform as much as they
could get away with - because human nature seems to be that everyone wants
to look as different from each other as they can manage while staying within
the rules.

That depends on the culture this wasn't true in china. It is still isn't true in the authodox religions such as judaism, have yuo been to stamford hill ?

The one situation where school uniform is a problem, is when it immediately
identifies children from the "posh school" to the local kids from the
council estate next door. We had a real problem with local "Pots Kids" (the
district was unofficially called Potovens because of the smelting ovens in
the area a long time ago) invading the school grounds, and attacking
isolated boys who got separated from the rest while out on a cross-country
run.

Standard practice if you look differnt and it's not only a human trait it happens with animals too.

When I was at school it was the closest school that happened to be catholic school that were the enemy I rememer one day one year someone saw a knife.

But I had to walk almost past that school withing a few 100 metres but was never attacked they looked at us we looked at them. A few thugs might get involved in somne fights but the vast majoroty just got on with life.


My mum said that in her day, the girls from the High School and the boys
from the Grammar School were not allowed to be seen together while wearing
school uniform (this was a High School rule - the Grammar School were not as
paranoid) which was a problem when brothers and sisters travelled home on
the same bus or train. Some girls took plain clothes in a holdall and
changed into them in the loos just outside the school gate so they could
meet brothers or boyfriends without being penalised. The school knew it
happened and condoned this way of avoiding the rule: apparently it was not
the fact that *"their* girls met boys, but the fact that they were seen to
be High School girls doing it. The school had a very strange attitude: they
allowed junior boys from the Grammar School to use the pool - obviously when
girls were nowhere near - but they imposed a cur-off age of 12 because they
thought that older boys, post-puberty, would "pollute" the water. Maybe they
genuinely thought that their girls could become pregnant through swimming in
water that virile boys had just swum in ;-)

Sounds reasonable.
But boys from boys schools and girls from girls schools were always kept apart when close to the schools, nothing new about that.

Were they? Many boys from my boys only Grammar school spent most
lunchtimes over at the girl's Grammar.

I was talking offically, not what atually happened.

No-one ever instructed the pupils of either school that they weren't
permitted at the other school. There wasn't an official position on it.

And I very much doubt gay male students spent much time in the girls scools.
unless it was an attempt to cover up their sexual preference.

Not sure where that came from, as I did not say "all the boys", only
"many boys" spent their luchtime there - as as our lunch was 1-1/2 hours
and the walk was only 15 minutes, there was plenty of time.

SteveW

On 12/09/2019 21:21, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 11/09/2019 13:32, whisky-dave wrote:
That's the thing about inteligent people thay can work it out by
analising the context, thick ****s can't.


Surely the correct three letters at this point a

QED

Analising? You stick the words up your ****?

In WDs case, yup.


--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

On Thursday, 12 September 2019 21:28:45 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/09/2019 10:44, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 21:01:19 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 11/09/2019 13:30, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 14:22:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
You
could buy it from the school shop or from one specific gents' outfitters
in
town. There was still a gradation of poor/rich, based on the grade of
blazer
that your parents bought you: a "cheap" felt-like material or "expensive"
worsted barathea. It was still more or less the same style and cut, the
same
colour (bottle green), same "silver" buttons, and with the same school
badge
on the breast pocket, but the gradation of the type of material still
sorted
the sheep from the goats ;-)

yes but the general idea was that everyone from that school looked pretty
much the same.


In other words, if you try to make everyone the same, they'll *still*
find a
way to look for differences and better/worse distinctions ;-)

Yes but the school can claim everyone is treated the same.

Yes, the school treated everyone the same and everyone looked more or less
the same, barring attempts to "vary" the school uniform as much as they
could get away with - because human nature seems to be that everyone wants
to look as different from each other as they can manage while staying within
the rules.

That depends on the culture this wasn't true in china. It is still isn't true in the authodox religions such as judaism, have yuo been to stamford hill ?

The one situation where school uniform is a problem, is when it immediately
identifies children from the "posh school" to the local kids from the
council estate next door. We had a real problem with local "Pots Kids" (the
district was unofficially called Potovens because of the smelting ovens in
the area a long time ago) invading the school grounds, and attacking
isolated boys who got separated from the rest while out on a cross-country
run.

Standard practice if you look differnt and it's not only a human trait it happens with animals too.

When I was at school it was the closest school that happened to be catholic school that were the enemy I rememer one day one year someone saw a knife.

But I had to walk almost past that school withing a few 100 metres but was never attacked they looked at us we looked at them. A few thugs might get involved in somne fights but the vast majoroty just got on with life.


My mum said that in her day, the girls from the High School and the boys
from the Grammar School were not allowed to be seen together while wearing
school uniform (this was a High School rule - the Grammar School were not as
paranoid) which was a problem when brothers and sisters travelled home on
the same bus or train. Some girls took plain clothes in a holdall and
changed into them in the loos just outside the school gate so they could
meet brothers or boyfriends without being penalised. The school knew it
happened and condoned this way of avoiding the rule: apparently it was not
the fact that *"their* girls met boys, but the fact that they were seen to
be High School girls doing it. The school had a very strange attitude: they
allowed junior boys from the Grammar School to use the pool - obviously when
girls were nowhere near - but they imposed a cur-off age of 12 because they
thought that older boys, post-puberty, would "pollute" the water. Maybe they
genuinely thought that their girls could become pregnant through swimming in
water that virile boys had just swum in ;-)

Sounds reasonable.
But boys from boys schools and girls from girls schools were always kept apart when close to the schools, nothing new about that.

Were they? Many boys from my boys only Grammar school spent most
lunchtimes over at the girl's Grammar.

I was talking offically, not what atually happened.

No-one ever instructed the pupils of either school that they weren't
permitted at the other school. There wasn't an official position on it.

I doubt that otherwise why split the schools into boys and girls why not split them into left brainers and right brainers or any other division.
My old infants school had two separte entrances for boys and girls although they were never used like that when I was there.



And I very much doubt gay male students spent much time in the girls scools.
unless it was an attempt to cover up their sexual preference.

Not sure where that came from, as I did not say "all the boys", only
"many boys" spent their luchtime there - as as our lunch was 1-1/2 hours
and the walk was only 15 minutes, there was plenty of time.

and I'm betting some boys like I did spend time playing football or going to the park or the local newsagents.

On Friday, 13 September 2019 09:01:37 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/09/2019 21:21, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 11/09/2019 13:32, whisky-dave wrote:
That's the thing about inteligent people thay can work it out by
analising the context, thick ****s can't.


Surely the correct three letters at this point a

QED

Analising? You stick the words up your ****?

In WDs case, yup.

so what is the connection between anal ising and the ****?
and why the question mark ?


--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

Strange she thinks that way as scientists use hypothesis which is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

On 13/09/2019 12:59, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 12 September 2019 21:28:45 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/09/2019 10:44, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 21:01:19 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 11/09/2019 13:30, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 14:22:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
You
could buy it from the school shop or from one specific gents' outfitters
in
town. There was still a gradation of poor/rich, based on the grade of
blazer
that your parents bought you: a "cheap" felt-like material or "expensive"
worsted barathea. It was still more or less the same style and cut, the
same
colour (bottle green), same "silver" buttons, and with the same school
badge
on the breast pocket, but the gradation of the type of material still
sorted
the sheep from the goats ;-)

yes but the general idea was that everyone from that school looked pretty
much the same.


In other words, if you try to make everyone the same, they'll *still*
find a
way to look for differences and better/worse distinctions ;-)

Yes but the school can claim everyone is treated the same.

Yes, the school treated everyone the same and everyone looked more or less
the same, barring attempts to "vary" the school uniform as much as they
could get away with - because human nature seems to be that everyone wants
to look as different from each other as they can manage while staying within
the rules.

That depends on the culture this wasn't true in china. It is still isn't true in the authodox religions such as judaism, have yuo been to stamford hill ?

The one situation where school uniform is a problem, is when it immediately
identifies children from the "posh school" to the local kids from the
council estate next door. We had a real problem with local "Pots Kids" (the
district was unofficially called Potovens because of the smelting ovens in
the area a long time ago) invading the school grounds, and attacking
isolated boys who got separated from the rest while out on a cross-country
run.

Standard practice if you look differnt and it's not only a human trait it happens with animals too.

When I was at school it was the closest school that happened to be catholic school that were the enemy I rememer one day one year someone saw a knife.

But I had to walk almost past that school withing a few 100 metres but was never attacked they looked at us we looked at them. A few thugs might get involved in somne fights but the vast majoroty just got on with life.


My mum said that in her day, the girls from the High School and the boys
from the Grammar School were not allowed to be seen together while wearing
school uniform (this was a High School rule - the Grammar School were not as
paranoid) which was a problem when brothers and sisters travelled home on
the same bus or train. Some girls took plain clothes in a holdall and
changed into them in the loos just outside the school gate so they could
meet brothers or boyfriends without being penalised. The school knew it
happened and condoned this way of avoiding the rule: apparently it was not
the fact that *"their* girls met boys, but the fact that they were seen to
be High School girls doing it. The school had a very strange attitude: they
allowed junior boys from the Grammar School to use the pool - obviously when
girls were nowhere near - but they imposed a cur-off age of 12 because they
thought that older boys, post-puberty, would "pollute" the water. Maybe they
genuinely thought that their girls could become pregnant through swimming in
water that virile boys had just swum in ;-)

Sounds reasonable.
But boys from boys schools and girls from girls schools were always kept apart when close to the schools, nothing new about that.

Were they? Many boys from my boys only Grammar school spent most
lunchtimes over at the girl's Grammar.

I was talking offically, not what atually happened.

No-one ever instructed the pupils of either school that they weren't
permitted at the other school. There wasn't an official position on it.

I doubt that otherwise why split the schools into boys and girls why not split them into left brainers and right brainers or any other division.
My old infants school had two separte entrances for boys and girls although they were never used like that when I was there.

My infants and juniors both had boys and girls entrances and separate
playgounds, but by the time I was there, they'd become the entrance and
playgound for different year groups instead.

The boys and girls grammar schools were originally one school, but with
the post-war baby boom, it was too small in the sixties, so a second
school was built. For continuity of subject teaching as pupils
progressed through the years, the easiest split was then boys at one and
girls at the other, rather than by years.

The year after I left, they'd extended the old school and were
re-merging the schools over a period of 3 or 4 years.

And I very much doubt gay male students spent much time in the girls scools.
unless it was an attempt to cover up their sexual preference.

Not sure where that came from, as I did not say "all the boys", only
"many boys" spent their luchtime there - as as our lunch was 1-1/2 hours
and the walk was only 15 minutes, there was plenty of time.

and I'm betting some boys like I did spend time playing football or going to the park or the local newsagents.

If we wanted to play football or other sports, we had no need to leave
the school.

SteveW